Watkins v. Federal Life Ins. Co., 6061

• Decision Date: 15 February 1934
• Docket Number: 6061
• Citation: 54 Idaho 174,29 P.2d 1007
• Parties: DALLAS B. WATKINS, a Minor, by NELLIE G. WATKINS, Guardian Ad Litem, Respondent, v. FEDERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

29 P.2d 1007

54 Idaho 174

DALLAS B. WATKINS, a Minor, by NELLIE G. WATKINS, Guardian Ad Litem, Respondent, v. FEDERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant

No. 6061

Supreme Court of Idaho

February 15, 1934

INSURANCE-CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION OF-EVIDENCE-ISSUES OF FACT, DETERMINATION OF.

1. Contracts of insurance must be construed in view of their general objects, avoiding strict and technical interpretation.

2. Where language of insurance policy may be given two meanings one of which permits recovery and other which does not, it is to be given construction most favorable to insured.

3. Contract of insurance must be read and considered as whole and meaning and intention of parties determined therefrom.

4. Limited accident policy insuring against loss sustained by wrecking or disablement of any horse-drawn or motor-driven car covered loss of sight of one eye sustained in accident which wrecked horse-drawn farm wagon while insured was operating it.

5. Loss of sight of eye from object striking insured in eye when farm rack wagon struck gatepost held injury sustained through "external, violent and accidental means and independently of all other causes," within terms of limited accident policy.

6. Issues of fact in civil cases are to be determined in accordance with preponderance of evidence and need not be established beyond reasonable doubt.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, for Canyon County. Hon. John C. Rice, Judge.

Action on accident insurance policy. Judgment for plaintiff. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Costs awarded to respondent.

Scatterday & Stone, for Appellant.

The rule requiring construction of a life insurance policy in favor of the insured only applies in case of ambiguity. (Maryland Cas. Co. v. Boise Street Car Co., 52 Idaho 133, 140, 11 P.2d 1090, 1093; Field v. Southern Surety Co. of New York, 211 Iowa 1239, 235 N.W. 571.)

Hawley & Worthwine, for Respondent.

The policy will be construed most favorably to the insured, and so construed it is not necessary that the accident be sustained by the wrecking or disablement of the vehicle. (Sant v. Continental Life Ins. Co., 49 Idaho 691, 291 P. 1072; Sweaney & Smith Co. v. St. Paul Fire etc. Ins. Co., 35 Idaho 303, 206 P. 178.)

MORGAN, J. Budge, C. J., and Givens, Holden and Wernette, JJ., concur.

OPINION

MORGAN, J.

This action was commenced by respondent to recover on an accident insurance policy issued by appellant. A jury was waived and the trial resulted in judgment for plaintiff, from which defendant appealed.

The record discloses that appellant, for a valuable consideration, issued a policy insuring respondent against loss by accident; that at a time when the policy was in force and effect and when respondent was using and operating a horse-drawn farm wagon equipped with a hay rack and was attempting to drive through a gate his attention was distracted and he so drove, or allowed the team to go, that the rack struck a gatepost and wrecked the wagon; that when the rack struck the post respondent fell forward on one knee and an object which be believed to be a staple from the fence (exactly what it was is not shown) struck him in the eye and destroyed the sight thereof.

The specifications of error question the sufficiency of the complaint; of the evidence and findings of fact to sustain the judgment, and, as stated in appellant's brief, present for our determination two points: "1. The proper construction of the insurance policy involved; 2. Whether or not plaintiff's evidence brings him within the terms of the policy."

Contracts of insurance are to be construed in view of their general objects and strict, technical interpretation is to be avoided. Where language may be given two meanings, one of which permits recovery and the other does not, it is to be given the construction most favorable to the insured. (Sweaney & Smith Co. v. St. Paul etc. Ins. Co., 35 Idaho 303, 206 P. 178; Sant v. Continental Life Ins. Co., 49 Idaho 691, 291 P. 1072; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Boise Street Car Co., 52 Idaho 133, 11 P.2d 1090.)

The contract under consideration is a limited accident insurance policy, and it is recited therein that appellant "HEREBY INSURES Dallas B. Watkins (hereinafter called the Insured) for a term of twelve (12) months from the date hereof, beginning at noon, standard time, of the day this Policy is dated, against accidental death, dismemberment or disability resulting, within sixty (60) days from the date of accident, directly and independently of all other causes from bodily injuries sustained through external, violent and accidental means (suicide, sane or insane, or any attempt thereat, not included) for the amounts and in the manner set forth in Parts I, II, III, IV, V, and VI subject to the provisions, conditions and limitations contained in this Policy."

Part I of the policy refers to railroad and steamboat accidents; Part II to street-car, bus and taxicab accidents, and Part III is as follows:

"PART III. AUTOMOBILE AND SPECIFIED FARM MACHINERY ACCIDENTS (a) For loss of life, both...